Estimated potential prime power capabilities of major hydroelectric projects in main control plan, as outlined in Corps of Engineers' 308 Report C2)-All benefits credited directly at site (phase 1 Decrease in nominal prime capability at Hungry Horse project in phase C2 due to draw-down over a longer storage control period was deducted from increased capability at Grand Coulee. Plants recommended for construction in phase C2 period. As shown by the Army Engineers' reports, the Columbia is one of the world's great rivers. The second largest in the United States in water volume and the largest in potential hydroelectric source. Its drainage basin comprising about 7 percent of the area of the United States, contains nearly one-half of the Nation's potential water power. Despite wide variations in precipitation, a relatively large and steady volume of streamflow is available. Without artificial regulation, however, extensive flood damages occur periodically, water supplies for irrigation are inadequate in many areas, economic utlization of the power potential is precluded, and navigation is hampered. The region is currently developing at an appreciably higher rate than the national average and its economy is dependent to an unusual degree on efficient utilization of its vast water resources. Formulation of up-to-date plans for orderly and timely development of those resources is therefore essential. The Chief of Army Engineers recommends an effective plan for such development, whereby the agencies best qualified by experience to develop the region can proceed efficiently and in consonance with the views and needs of the people of the region. This plan was determined upon by the Army Engineers after the full cooperation with the State and local interests affected and the other Federal agencies concerned in the several States embraced in the Columbia Basin area. Numerous hearings in the area were held and this program recommended by the Army Engineers has received the approval of the various agencies, including the Bureau of Reclamation which is a coordinate branch of the Government with jurisdiction over all reclamation projects within the area. General Pick testified before our committee that all differences and conflicts between these two departments, as well as other departments of the Government, had been resolved and that all agencies are in full accord with the program submitted. The Columbia River Basin project contemplates a comprehensive program in the fields of soil, wildlife, and natural resource conserva tion, reclamation and irrigation, public power, flood control, navigation and fishing. Present statutory provisions treat these subjects piecemeal and regulations governing them are found throughout the code. At present there are two main projects functioning on the Columbia River, the Bonneville and the Grand Coulee Dams. Bonneville Dam is operated by the Corps of Engineers and the Columbia Basin project (Grand Coulee) is operated by the Bureau of Reclamation. All power which is to be sold from either dam is delivered to the Bonneville Power Administration of the Department of the Interior for distribution. The Administration was designed originally as a temporary expedient pending formation of a comprehensive plan for developing the Columbia Valley. The Administrator, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, is empowered to build transmission lines, acquire property by condemnation, dispose of property, and enter into contracts germane to his functions. The Bonneville Power Administration generates 518,400 kilowatts at Bonneville Dam and more than 1,000,000 at Grand Coulee; it has been designated as the marketing agency for energy to be generated at Hungry Horse Dam, Mont., to be built and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and for the Willamette flood-control project, McNary Dam, Oreg., and the Snake River and Chief Joseph projects, all to be constructed by the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Chairman, the long years of experience of this committee with projects of this type will, I am sure, bring it to the conclusion that an over-all, comprehensive plan as outlined by the Army engineers, is the only solution for the major problems facing the Columbia Basin region. First of all it is essential to prevent the annual loss of property which in the long run will aggregate more than the cost of the project and prevent the loss of life and the disruption of the economy of the whole area. It is true that it involves the expenditure of large sums of money, but we should not overlook that much of it, particularly the hydroelectric power development, is self-sustaining, as the revenues returned to the Government not only cover the cost for the construction of the hydroelectric power developments but afford additional revenues to assist in reclamation development. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this committee will give its approval to the entire plan and will make a monetary authorization covering the project or at least a certain portion thereof, so that the project may be carried on at the earliest possible time in order to prevent recurring flood damage. As brought out by General Pick and other witnesses appearing before the committee, this 308 plan does not in any way conflict with the River Valley Administration recommended by the President and embodied in legislation now pending before the Congress. Regardless of what agency or authority may administer the program a comprehensive plan such as embodied in the 308 report is necessary in any event. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Stockman, Representative from the State of Oregon. We are very happy to hear from you at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. LOWELL STOCKMAN, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, the comprehensive plan of river development outlined in the 308 report of the Corps of Engineers has been developed as a result of extensive investigations and studies over a period of years, and has been thoroughly tested by means of numerous public hearings throughout the basin, and coordinated by joint planning with other Federal and State agencies. Its intent is to provide flood control, hydroelectric power, inland-waterway navigation, and maximum irrigation development for the region. While the plan is very extensive and requires large expenditures, in essence the Northwest is not asking for a gift, but only that the Federal Government extend credit for these projects, some of which will pay for themselves in a return of actual dollars and cents, while others will prove more than economically justified. Already the two great projects of Bonneville and Grand Coulee are returning annually $22,000,000 in cash to the Federal Treasury, which is far more than sufficient to pay all amortization, interest, and operation and maintenance charges both for the dam and for the federally owned transmission system. In fact, the Federal Government is now receiving a cash net return or profit of $2,000,000 annually from the Bonneville Dam alone. The inland navigation features of this plan are of considerable importance to the district which I represent in eastern Oregon. The Columbia River is at present hazardous and difficult to navigate, but already some 1,250,000 tons of commerce annually are carried in the upper region of the river above Bonneville Dam. This is bringing considerable benefits to eastern Oregon, on account of the movement upstream of petroleum products and downstream of great cargoes of wheat, most of which is processed through river ports at Umatilla and The Dalles. The eventual construction of The Dalles and John Day Reservoir will provide slack-water navigation whereby eight barges would be handled by a single towboat instead of one as at present. The greatest flood-control benefits of the comprehensive plan are for the lower Columbia at and below Portland; but some of the minor tributaries in the district I represent suffer severe damage from floods and will be provided flood protection by this plan. One of these is the Grand Ronde Basin, whoch suffered terrible damage in 1948 and was exposed to lesser flooding within the last month. Even this small flood covered 2,000 acres of agricultural land in the lower valley; and the flood of Catherine Creek threatened the city waterworks, a bridge, and other valuable property which was saved only because of flood-control work constructed last fall be the county, supplemented by emergency work during the flood by the Corps of Engineers. The 308 report provides for a complete levee and channel improvement in the valley at a cost of approximately $3,000,000. This will remedy a situation which threatens an extremely prosperous valley and several towns within it. Additional study is also being made of reservoirs and flood protection for this valley, but I understand that these studies are not yet complete. The Umatilla River is another tributary with very serious flood problems. The city of Pendleton in particular has only a partial degree of levee protection which leaves the city in an extremely dangerous situation in the event of a major flood such as occurred in the past. Serious loss of life as well as property damage is at stake. The 308 report provided for $500,000 for levee and channel improvements at this point and approximately $150,000 for channel work downstream at points where serious damage is threatened. This work is necessary and should be pushed. In addition other studies not included in the 308 report are being made by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation of a multiple-purpose project for this stream, the Ryan Creek Dam. This dam is not definitely recommended in the 308 report; but I wish to mention it at this time and to state that while I regard the levee and channel work proposed as essential. I do not consider that this flood protection will be fully adequate until this reservoir is also constructed. The 308 report also provides for construction of a dam on the Willow Creek to protect the town of Heppner which is subject to cloudburst floods, which on one occasion in the past drowned over 200 persons. There are other local flood problems in my district which arouse concern from time to time. I note that the 308 report calls for an authorization of $15,000,000 to cover these small local flood-control projects throughout the basin in addition to those specifically authorized. In view of the vast number of localities subject to floods, and the changing conditions on many of these streams, where remedial action must be taken within a few months or even weeks in order to prevent the loss of irreplaceable property values. I think that the request for blanket authorization, which is generally similar to the provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1948, should be included in early authorization under the basin plan. The amount involved is small in comparison with the cost of a single one of the vast multiple-purpose projects of the main control plan, but the possibility of a prompt remedy for these acute local flood situations is important in terms of human needs. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Jackson. Representative from the State of Washington. We are very happy to hear from you at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY M. JACKSON, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, Governor Langlie is right when he says that the Northwest is of one mind as to the need for the great projects embodied in the joint plan presented here this morning by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Pacific Northwest has been suffering from a power shortage unprecedented in the history of our region. During the past year it has been necessary on several occasions to curtail the use of power. The result has been a cut-back in production in many of our important industrial operations. What is worse, we have had to turn away industries which were anxious to enter and settle in our region, but were prevented from doing so by a lack of power. I shall not burden the committee with a detailed justification of each and every project contained in these reports, now being discussed informally by the committee. I shall merely say that I believe that the dams, irrigation, flood control and navigation facilities mentioned by Colonel Weaver, Mr. Newell, and others, must be built. However, I have heard nothing here today to indicate they will be properly coordinated and brought to completion at a rate commensurate with regional needs or national security. The substance of the Columbia River program is one thing-proper, efficient administration and rapid achievement of the program are something else again. The question of organization was not the one which this committee set out to discuss today. But since it has been raised, I feel duty bound to address myself to it. I should like to address myself particularly to one statement made by Governor Langlie this morning. He said: Much of the support for authority legislation, which is offered as an alternative, is inspired from the Washington, D. C., level. In this statement, Governor Langlie makes two mistakes. For one thing, he implies that there is little or no support among the citizens of the Northwest for a Columbia Valley administration. It might be well to call to his attention, and to the attention of the committee, the fact that CVA has been publicly and enthusiastically endorsed by the Washington State Grange, representing most of the farmers in my State of Washington, the Washington State Federation of Labor and the CIO, and the Washington State Council of Machinists, representing almost all of the organized working men in my State. It seems that no one is supporting CVA in Washington except the people of Washington. I should like to read to the committee parts of a letter sent to my colleague, Congressman Hugh B. Mitchell, by the heads of those organizations in my State. They write: Recent newspaper reports quoting anti-CVA spokesmen as saying that there is no support in the Pacific Northwest for the Columbia Valley Administration bill is an insult to the many Northwest organizations which have actively favored this legislation for years. * * The organizations we represent have a combined membership of a half million persons plus their families. We challenge the CVA opponents to name the people they represent when they claim to speak as the voice of the Pacific Northwest. * * CVA will bring greater benefits to the Pacific Northwst by hastening the development of the Columbia, America's greatest source of power. It will be done in a completely democratic manner, and the people of the Northwest will have more to say in their future destiny than they have ever had before. The enthusiasm of our members convinces us that, were the CVA issue put to the test of a vote, the people of the Pacific Northwest would be overwhelmingly in favor of this legislation. The manner in which the people of our region are rallying to the support of CVA further convinces us that the Pacific Northwest wants a CVA and will have a CVA. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Washington State House of Representatives have passed a memorial favoring CVA. I have received letters from thousands of sincere individuals, local units of labor unions and granges, expressing their support of CVA. The President has received similar letters and telegrams congratulating him on his vigorous support of CVA legislation. |